PDA

View Full Version : DS Arms SA 58 & Cal DOJ Regulations


chamis
04-04-2007, 7:54 PM
DOJ 2002 Opinion Letter Regarding DS Arms SA58 Configuration Contradicts Recent DOJ Lawyer's Position Taken in Proposed Regulations and Prosecutions

The law firm of Trutanich-Michel, LLP has recently located and published a January 2002 opinion letter and expert report from the California Department of Justice - Bureau of Firearms (DOJ) that approves the magazine configuration on a DS Arms model SA58 rifle and confirms it is not an "assault weapon." The letter flatly contradicts the DOJ's current reinterpretation of what constitutes an illegal "assault weapon," and clarifies the historical position that has been taken by DOJ and relied on by thousands of gun owners since the 1999 "assault weapon" law was passed.

Hopefully, the release of these documents will serve to put an end to DOJ’s recent mistaken reinterpretations of the "assault weapon" law’s requirements, will prompt the DOJ to give clear guidance to firearms dealers, and will put an end to current criminal prosecutions of people who relied on the DOJ's previous interpretations in configuring their firearms to comply with the law.

The documents and the full article can be found here:
http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-481.html

oaklander
04-04-2007, 8:14 PM
Here here!

69Mach1
04-04-2007, 8:16 PM
DOJ has a new lawyer that can't do simple research or read? That's great.

The DOJ’s recent new position is driven largely by an anti-gun activist hired as DOJ’s attorney in 2005. That lawyer’s opinion conflicts with earlier opinions issued by other DOJ lawyers on the legality of guns with similar configurations, such as the model SA58, particularly on the "detachable magazine" feature.

oaklander
04-04-2007, 8:18 PM
I think they are referring to Alison.

oaklander
04-04-2007, 8:30 PM
Alison York Merrilees - #160280
Current Status: Active

This member is active and may practice law in California.

See below for more details.
Profile Information
Bar Number 160280
Address California Department of Justice
Firearms Division
PO Box 160487
Sacramento, CA 95816 Phone Number (916) 263-0802
Fax Number (916) 263-0676
e-mail hfumr@rej.orghnfmo@lojq.nettahdyaypo@ihcerk.comssr ujfgc@qlnt.edufrhowsprq@tushyaqy.orgwufapk@ngircda u.netqytaq@kflwcsr.govkoqo@kbclilee.orgaqduiupky@d uf.govpcwdaini@eqaqbmuy.govmlolnuu@ectyghhi.netdik m@iitoeyw.edungagh@rkdkhfof.orgnimi@hqtt.govblmpdw m@ykndnscs.netccaykhyi@uys.netpekfwsn@moomjam.coma lison.merrilees@sen.ca.goveywt@ssf.eduludefkk@bpkh ll.edu
District District 2 Undergraduate School Univ of California Berkeley; Berkeley CA
County Sacramento Law School UC Davis SOL King Hall; Davis CA
Sections None

Ten Rounder
04-04-2007, 8:47 PM
What does "poses significant risk of modification" mean in the Big Picture? I thought we as law abiding citizens could keep them in non-AW configuration. Or is the DOJ trying to plan nanny in hind sight?

Again the "use of a tool"

hoffmang
04-04-2007, 8:54 PM
The gloves are coming off a little bit and I like it.

The SA-58 really makes it clear that the standard magazine fixing kits are and always have been legal as they are identical in form to the DSA one. It also follows that the same analysis makes the Bullet Button style locks legal as well.

-Gene

NSR500
04-04-2007, 9:08 PM
Can someone please paint the picture of what the best outcome is from this?
Could this potentially Kill the current laws that keep us from being able to detach mags?

anotherone
04-04-2007, 9:09 PM
The gloves are coming off a little bit and I like it.

The SA-58 really makes it clear that the standard magazine fixing kits are and always have been legal as they are identical in form to the DSA one. It also follows that the same analysis makes the Bullet Button style locks legal as well.

-Gene

Kinda ironic really how the only party we can't get to outright admit these kits are legal are the ones who gave us the specifications to design a legal kit in the first place.

bwiese
04-04-2007, 10:13 PM
Can someone please paint the picture of what the best outcome is from this? Could this potentially Kill the current laws that keep us from being able to detach mags?

This just is further confirmation that our fixed mag configurations have always been legal.

Attacks on SB23 are separate, although this (along with some help from ACR73) shows how confusing AW laws have been esp with 'twisting in the wind' policy positions by DOJ.

hoffmang
04-04-2007, 10:13 PM
There is a stretch chance that this flip-flop by the CA DOJ on regulatory interpretation could cause a court to toss the regs, but it ranks up there with a lottery win.

Best and likely case is that it finally drives a nail in the coffin of the proposed rulemaking and CA DOJ attempts to not admit that mag fixing kits are legal.

-Gene

bwiese
04-04-2007, 10:14 PM
Kinda ironic really how the only party we can't get to outright admit these kits are legal are the ones who gave us the specifications to design a legal kit in the first place.

Oooh, that's a profoundly excellent summary.

xenophobe
04-04-2007, 10:27 PM
Wow... great letters. And a big deserved slap in the face to the BOF JBTs.

Shame on you BOFers... :p

dfletcher
04-04-2007, 10:39 PM
I presume the DSA SA58 DOJ is warring against has the metal spot weld on the e - block thereby preventing pivoting of the mag release. A metal spot weld seems permanent to me. What about the FAL folks with no spot weld & using an allen set screw in their mag lever? So far as I'm concerned, using a tool means using a tool whether it's in concert with a permanent feature or not - is DOJ likely to say otherwise & prevail?

bwiese
04-04-2007, 10:46 PM
I presume the DSA SA58 DOJ is warring against has the metal spot weld on the e - block thereby preventing pivoting of the mag release. A metal spot weld seems permanent to me.

That's nice, but there's NO PLACE in statuory or regulatory law that requires any permanence. The only thing legally required is use of a tool. And that tool can even be a bullet tip.

Period.

What about the FAL folks with no spot weld & using an allen set screw in their mag lever?

That certainly goes beyond the formal regulatory definition.


So far as I'm concerned, using a tool means using a tool whether it's in concert with a permanent feature or not

Correct. Again, the concept of permanence in regard to fixed magazines has no foundation in any CA law.

is DOJ likely to say otherwise & prevail?

No, because the current, in-force formal regulatory definition says even using a bullet tip is a tool, and that any magazine that requires a tool to remove is not a 'detachable magazine' for the purposes of 12276.1PC.

This, combined with the Iggy testimony deposed in the Hunt case stating that (approximate wording), "...DOJ does not consider a magazine affixed by a screw to be a detachable magazine..." really helps zip things up.
The Barrett M82CA is icing on the cake.

hoffmang
04-04-2007, 11:05 PM
And don't forget the reason this all started this way, the SKS:


Comment

A1.12 - The SKS rifle with a detachable magazine cannot be changed without using a bullet tip as a tool, thus the regulations conflict with the specific listing of SKS rifles with detachable magazines in the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act. DOJ has no authority to contradict existing law.

DOJ Response

The Department disagrees with the comment because any magazine that requires the use of a bullet or any other tool for its removal is a fixed magazine, not a detachable magazine. The SKS with a true detachable magazine does not require a bullet or any other tool to remove and is a controlled assault weapon under Penal Code section 12276. Identifying a bullet as a tool allows for the proper categorization of an SKS with a fixed magazine. Therefore, the SKS referred to in the comment has a fixed, not detachable magazine.
From http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf

I do realize you were alluding to it, but figured the full quote made it even clearer.

-Gene

Addax
04-04-2007, 11:07 PM
I seriously think that the DOJ is doing all of this smoke and mirrors stuff on purpose.

They are sowing confusion and contradicting themselves as a tactic, which helps DOJ in to dodge/avoind having to directly address these concerns, which would then recognize, acknowledge and further legitimize the OLL/OLR situation, and our methods of fixed mags or attachable mags using bullet buttons..

The DOJ is going after people with OLL/OLR's to see if they can get one guy to fold under pressure so that they can have their test case from which they could possibly help to have the laws re-written eventually in their favor...

Or they are talking to the new Democrates and awaiting for the Dem's to enact a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban which would address the OLL/OLR, Fixed Mag/Attachable Mag/Detachable Mag definintions in their favor..

hoffmang
04-04-2007, 11:17 PM
Addax,

The parts of CA DOJ that care about this issue are stuck in a box. Their regulation is clearly contradicting existing law - which means it can't become law. No AW ban is going to come from the Federal level (which is explained by the number of pro gun Dems in the senate.) Getting a new AW ban through the CA Legislature leads to a new mass registration of all of our OLLs if they are configured in a way that is no longer allowable.

I think you're hearing a desperate situation from someone boxed in. Sometimes desperate folks make dumb maneuvers that can really be exploited... Only time will tell.

-Gene

Addax
04-04-2007, 11:32 PM
I keep hearing some water cooler talk about the Anti Gun Dem's planning on pushing through a possible new Federal Firearms Ban bundled into a bill/legislations that could possibly get pushed through by anti gun politicians.

The concern is that the Anti Gun Politicians and their special interest groups would target a majority of Pro Gun politicians and threaten their interest or veto important bills/legislations that are important to Pro Gun Politicians.

Therefore a compromise could be made by some or allot of Pro Gun politicians which could create a new Federal Firearms Ban?

I understand that the CA DOJ is not above the law, but they sure are causing havoc either on purpose or because they are the keystone cops...:D



Addax,

The parts of CA DOJ that care about this issue are stuck in a box. Their regulation is clearly contradicting existing law - which means it can't become law. No AW ban is going to come from the Federal level (which is explained by the number of pro gun Dems in the senate.) Getting a new AW ban through the CA Legislature leads to a new mass registration of all of our OLLs if they are configured in a way that is no longer allowable.

I think you're hearing a desperate situation from someone boxed in. Sometimes desperate folks make dumb maneuvers that can really be exploited... Only time will tell.

-Gene

bwiese
04-04-2007, 11:33 PM
The parts of CA DOJ that care about this issue are stuck in a box.

What's amazing is that every thing they do seems to tighten the box (noose?) even more tightly about them :)


I think you're hearing a desperate situation from someone boxed in. Sometimes desperate folks make dumb maneuvers that can really be exploited...


Some of this latest sturn und drang may be due to very unclear managment authority issues due to restructuring. I think the DOJ in SoCal didn't realize the DSA CaliFAL was indeed approved, and further handwaving in Sacto didn't wanna admit to it because that would add 'clarity' to the Modesto case.

hoffmang
04-04-2007, 11:49 PM
Addax,

The Dems control the Senate by 1 vote. You've heard of him recently. He's Jim Webb and that was his staffer carrying his gun. Do you think Web and the other blue dog southern pro gun dems want to go back and try to get re-elected where the Reeps are hitting them with that stick?

-Gene

Addax
04-05-2007, 12:34 AM
That was him?

Yeah, I heard about that incident on the radio the other day..

Yes, you have a very good point...



Addax,

The Dems control the Senate by 1 vote. You've heard of him recently. He's Jim Webb and that was his staffer carrying his gun. Do you think Web and the other blue dog southern pro gun dems want to go back and try to get re-elected where the Reeps are hitting them with that stick?

-Gene

Ford8N
04-05-2007, 5:45 AM
This has to be adding ammo to the Hunt case. It's getting to the point that all the AW laws are not working and should be tossed. If I was gun ignorant and you put an AK, AR or FAL receiver that was banned by name in front of me, then put a knock off next to it and say this is legal. I would say the law is a joke. Or even better, put a DSA 58 with the piston removed and gas system shut off next to a FN FAL banned gun and say that one is evil and one is nice. Even though the DSA could be converted in a free state to evilness in about 15 seconds or less. This is funny.

Glasshat
04-05-2007, 10:44 AM
Hopefully, the release of these documents will serve to put an end to DOJ’s recent mistaken reinterpretations of the "assault weapon" law’s requirements, will prompt the DOJ to give clear guidance to firearms dealers, and will put an end to current criminal prosecutions of people who relied on the DOJ's previous interpretations in configuring their firearms to comply with the law.



Ha!! The DOJ is never mistaken in its interpretations. Their mission is to ban all guns; all of these little letters are merely meaningless technicalities to be ignored in the quest for safe streets.

Two different scenarios: One, the DOJ wrote the letter of course, and knew it wrote the letter when it cavalierly and unilaterally changed the law in another attempt to ban more guns by any means. The DOJ figured mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging gun owners would never catch on. Or two, the DOJ forgot it wrote the letter and figured it was plowing a new field by banning the heretofore-unknown FAL set screw loophole. Suggesting the DOJ is a bunch of unorganized cowboys bent on banning as many guns as possible.

Which scenario is correct really doesn’t matter. The common thread is that the DOJ wants to ban all guns and will continue on its mission by hook or by crook.

There is no controlling authority that wants to rein them in because they are accomplishing a gun ban without the legislators having to vote for one.

bwiese
04-05-2007, 10:48 AM
[quote]There is no controlling authority that wants to rein them in because they are accomplishing a gun ban without the legislators having to vote for one.

Much of the lack of controlling authority may be due to the re-org and demotion from a Division down to a Bureau. In the last year, administrative oversight/mgmt (Rossi) has been on preretirement cruise control and he's largely let others run the game. So some things are running free/unsupervised.

I do think DOJ's left hand vs right hand didn't know they'd approved the DSA CaliFAL, or that it wasn't a formal opinion letter.

oaklander
04-05-2007, 11:00 AM
The BOF is an organization, like any other. . .

The problem with the DOJ's BOF is that when this particular organization screws up, people get arrested. It's not like a department store where bad management means that a given store clerk may now know where the socks are located.

Here, the BOF's incompetence and outright arrogance causes law-abiding citizens to get arrested.

I've spoken to Alison Merilees several times and she has always been rude and arrogant. She even refused to help me formulate a PRA request, even though the law requires that she do so.

I eventually got my PRA docs after threatening to sue.

I've also spoke with Iggy Chin, and the first thing he did was ask me "where I got this number." For the record, Iggy's work phone number is 916-263-0956.

What a bunch of cranks and idiots. It'd be funny if they didn't have so much power.

JesseXXX
04-05-2007, 11:11 AM
For some reason I can't open: http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-481.html ...?

blacklisted
04-05-2007, 11:59 AM
I presume the DSA SA58 DOJ is warring against has the metal spot weld on the e - block thereby preventing pivoting of the mag release. A metal spot weld seems permanent to me. What about the FAL folks with no spot weld & using an allen set screw in their mag lever? So far as I'm concerned, using a tool means using a tool whether it's in concert with a permanent feature or not - is DOJ likely to say otherwise & prevail?

You could probably use a tool to remove the pins that hold the ejector block in place, remove the magazine, then install a new ejector block. That doesn't sound permanent to me. Either way, the APPROVED SA 58 does not comply with the proposed regulations.

oaklander
04-05-2007, 12:29 PM
For some reason I can't open: http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-481.html ...?

I think the site is down right now.

hoffmang
04-05-2007, 12:56 PM
Certain anti-gun friends of Alison warned her that these pre-existing approval letters could be.... problematic... for her position about the new regulations.

She chose not to listen to them and the chicken is coming home to roost.

-Gene

bwiese
04-05-2007, 1:00 PM
She chose not to listen to them and the chicken is coming home to roost.


Just one? :)

hoffmang
04-05-2007, 1:17 PM
I'm trying to stay on topic in this thread :D

-Gene

bwiese
04-05-2007, 1:29 PM
Haha, yeah.

What really interests me on this is why the DOJ thinks it can try to alternate from previous opinion letters and have any credibility. Even more amazing is that they lost track of this letter/approval.

anonymous
04-05-2007, 2:26 PM
Is the California DOJ unique in that it is more of a legislative body than an executive body, or do most DOJs play loose and fast with the letter of the law to coerce citizens into doing what they think the law should in fact say?

Hunter
04-05-2007, 2:51 PM
This investigation letter
http://calgunlaws.com/Docs/ASSAULT%20WEAPONS/Agency%20Opinion/DOJanalysisSA58.pdf

is a big plus for the Prince 50 kits. Both do exactly the same thing using an allen screw and both can be "modified" back into a detachable state with the proper tools. So in a round about way, this actually helps provide "DOJ approval" the Prince 50 kits directly.

"..a hex set screw was machined into the release, placing pressure on the magazine well wall to hold the latch in a fixed posion.

I was able to loosen and adjust the hex set screw out enough to release the magazine."

goose
04-05-2007, 4:02 PM
You could probably use a tool to remove the pins that hold the ejector block in place, remove the magazine, then install a new ejector block. That doesn't sound permanent to me. Either way, the APPROVED SA 58 does not comply with the proposed regulations.


I'm assuming your being sarcastic, didn't see a smiley face after your post. If you are serious you need to read a little more.:D

xenophobe
04-05-2007, 7:05 PM
There is nothing in the law about conversion and permanence when it comes to SB-23 and generic characteristics of 12276.1 Assault Weapons.

This is just providing the icing on the cake for Hunt v. Brown.

The Boffers have given the case more evidence on so many different circumstances proving that they themselves cannot remain consistent, and cannot interpret their own regulations, and that the laws cannot be consistently applied throughout the 58 counties.

The Boffers have done nothing to solidify their position and implementation of the DWCL and right now it's all falling apart. Hopefully the courts will be provided with all of this new information and laws nullified.

Glasshat
04-05-2007, 8:32 PM
The BOFers may have screwed up their rulings and interpretations consistantly, but the California courts are slanted in a libward direction. It's going to be a tough battle even with all the ammunition the DOJ is providing!

artherd
04-07-2007, 2:52 AM
I do think DOJ's left hand vs right hand didn't know they'd approved the DSA CaliFAL, or that it wasn't a formal opinion letter.

I wonder if Iggy (signature's on the damn supporting docs) grabbed any DSAs personally?

You don't get to go around prosecuting people because you "forgot" certin things were legal!

artherd
04-07-2007, 2:55 AM
Haha, yeah.

What really interests me on this is why the DOJ thinks it can try to alternate from previous opinion letters and have any credibility...
Indeed, this was infact the very subject of one of my Written Comment letters to DOJ, that by going down this stupid-arsed path they are hurting their credability to the point where they may hurt their ability to appear as Expert Whitnesses.

C.G.
04-07-2007, 8:30 PM
New reply on FALFILES from DSA:
We have read the law but we cannot be in the business of crossing the DOJ. If we ship an item to a dealer and they cannot sell it without getting into trouble with them, what have we accomplished? The dealer or wholesaler gets sent inventory they cannot move, and what incentive do they have to order more items from us? The issues you are having are with the DOJ and not DSA. They apparently have decided to change the rules on you mid-stream. We can ship anything we want out there, but your dealers will not deliver them to you unless they want to violate what the DOJ is telling them not to do.

As for standing orders, that is up to customers. DSA has done all it can and will do to be compliant, yet the DOJ is still saying we are not. We even have provided them with THEIR letters saying our guns are acceptable. They have decided to act on their own in violation of their previous rulings. I hope for the sake of California gun owners that they change their mind. You certainly have all of our sympathies dealing with this and other insane restrictions on your 2nd Amendment rights.

I consider this question answered and discussion on it closed. I am sorry some members are directing their anger at the wrong party.

John



__________________
John Howard

DSA Forum Representative

dfletcher
04-07-2007, 8:37 PM
I saw that comment when 1st posted on the FAL Files web - not exactly encouraging. I hope the upper managers of DSA exhibit a tougher attitude.

thedrickel
04-07-2007, 9:10 PM
I guess that was in response to my question about the bare uppers. Which they didn't answer. Hopefully they have read the law enough to know that uppers with no evil features cannot possibly be assault weapons unless configured improperly by the end user. The part that gets me is this:

If we ship an item to a dealer and they cannot sell it without getting into trouble with them, what have we accomplished?

Umm, if I have a dealer willing to DROS it and risk their license, shouldn't that tell DSA something about the legality of bare uppers and SB-23 compliant rifles?

BLKTALN
04-07-2007, 10:10 PM
The BOF is an organization, like any other. . .

The problem with the DOJ's BOF is that when this particular organization screws up, people get arrested. It's not like a department store where bad management means that a given store clerk may now know where the socks are located.

Here, the BOF's incompetence and outright arrogance causes law-abiding citizens to get arrested.

I've spoken to Alison Merilees several times and she has always been rude and arrogant. She even refused to help me formulate a PRA request, even though the law requires that she do so.

I eventually got my PRA docs after threatening to sue.

I've also spoke with Iggy Chin, and the first thing he did was ask me "where I got this number." For the record, Iggy's work phone number is 916-263-0956.

What a bunch of cranks and idiots. It'd be funny if they didn't have so much power.

yea... agreed. few seats on top determines the direction of california. if we all make an effort to speak/vote for our rights at least at the end of the day, at least we tried our best....

reach out and persuade someone... one at a time...

Ford8N
04-08-2007, 6:11 AM
New reply on FALFILES from DSA:

So it looks like the DOJ is flat out banning a legal rifle by threatening the Kali dealers?? Can they do that? Just make up law as they go? So if you own a legal FAL clone that has been banned by the DOJ, you should be able to register it as an AW? The DOJ says they are now banned, right? Does the Kali legislature know that a state bureau is making up laws and there is nothing that they can do to stop them. This is crazy.

dawson8r
04-08-2007, 7:52 AM
Could the DOJ be sued for interferring with interstate commerce? Who would have to bring the suit? DSA? Probably not much of a motivational factor for them. And yeah, I read the posts on another thread about how expensive lawsuits can be so it isn't just a matter of filing.

Jeez, how I would love to win the Mega Millions lottery. I think it would be a worthwhile cause and use of my newfound financial resources to finance the fight against some of this crap! Unfortunately, I'm usually more concerned with how expensive ammo is.

ravenbkp
04-08-2007, 10:38 PM
Three things could really change things here: 1 an honest redistricting scheme
2. get the proposed split of the ninth circuit back on track (and pray for some better judges) 3 get public employees union money out of CA politics

The big catch is how to get any movement on any of them!

hoffmang
04-08-2007, 10:55 PM
dawson8r,

CA DOJ has real exposure to violations of Federal Law and certain interstate commerce claims on these sorts of things.

-Gene

C.G.
04-09-2007, 1:45 AM
Could the DOJ be sued for interferring with interstate commerce? Who would have to bring the suit? DSA? Probably not much of a motivational factor for them. And yeah, I read the posts on another thread about how expensive lawsuits can be so it isn't just a matter of filing.

Jeez, how I would love to win the Mega Millions lottery. I think it would be a worthwhile cause and use of my newfound financial resources to finance the fight against some of this crap! Unfortunately, I'm usually more concerned with how expensive ammo is.

The tactic now is intimidation.

luvtolean
04-09-2007, 9:53 AM
dawson8r,

CA DOJ has real exposure to violations of Federal Law and certain interstate commerce claims on these sorts of things.

-Gene

I wish Calgunlaw was working so I could read the docs.

But if what I can piece together here is correct, the Bureau of Firearms (their new logo kills me, I love it lol :D :D ), has made tactical errors with strategic consequences.

This very likely will be a good thing for us in the future.

bwiese
04-09-2007, 10:07 AM
But if what I can piece together here is correct, the Bureau of Firearms (their new logo kills me, I love it lol :D :D ), has made tactical errors with strategic consequences.

This very likely will be a good thing for us in the future.

Yep. I think at this point, with the reorg, the inmates are running the asylum without a whole lot of supervisionl.

DOJ BoF budget isn't due for a bit yet, so that may lead to some rejiggerings.

Swirvin
04-11-2007, 11:12 AM
I'm not sure if this is old news, but a nice lady from DSA told me over the phone today that DSA has decided to continue shipping their rifles to CA.

hoffmang
04-11-2007, 11:40 AM
That is most excellent news.

-Gene

luvtolean
04-11-2007, 11:51 AM
I'm not sure if this is old news, but a nice lady from DSA told me over the phone today that DSA has decided to continue shipping their rifles to CA.

Dude!! DSA freakin' rocks. :D

I don't need another FAL, but maybe an accessory or something...

artherd
04-11-2007, 2:01 PM
... the Bureau of Firearms (their new logo kills me, I love it lol :D :D ), has made tactical errors with strategic consequences.

Understatment of the decade! :D

xenophobe
04-11-2007, 3:05 PM
CA DOJ has real exposure to violations of Federal Law and certain interstate commerce claims on these sorts of things.

Yes, but DOJ doesn't care about changing their decision. It will take someone with money to initiate a suit against them. Until then, whatever they choose to say and do will be unchallenged.

hoffmang
04-11-2007, 7:48 PM
Xeno,

As to stopping the FUD yes. However, their changing positions make it almost impossible to prosecute anyone.

-Gene

xenophobe
04-11-2007, 7:59 PM
Yes, but the threat of prosecution, even though it is misguided, confusing or just plain wrong is what is keeping them going. Of course, after allowing to be stripped of the power to list new assault weapons, the decriminalization of possession, and their lack of coherent and consistent policy leaves them in a lame duck status leaving the ultimate power in the state to their respective counties.

hoffmang
04-11-2007, 8:16 PM
Concur, but creating a rich evidentiary history to make a mockery of them in State or Federal court is just kind of begging for trouble.

There is a time and place for everything... Lame duck for right now, and exposed to serious accusations on the record for later. I like the situation.

-Gene

xenophobe
04-11-2007, 8:31 PM
Concur, but creating a rich evidentiary history to make a mockery of them in State or Federal court is just kind of begging for trouble.

Oh of course. I can just imagine all the stuff Jason Davis could dump out against the DOJ if there were a no-holds-barred fight in a trial court.

But then, the DOJ has put themselves into this position and have only been doing damage to their credibility since SB-23 went into effect. Only recently have they tried the damage control routine, only to find out it's causing more problems than fixing.

Interestingly enough, all the cases that the DOJ would get a major spanking from have been dropped before any actual trial. It's not coincidence. They'll keep dropping the ball until they find 'the perfect case' for them, which is a bit on the wishful thinking side. They'll have to find one of those teenagers with illegally configured OLLs, proof of importing high capacity mags after 2000, and hope that his legal defense isn't somehow in contact with TMLLP. They're going to have to hope to get a slam-dunk prosecution to make a public mockery of. Yes, it is wishful thinking on their behalf.

tango-52
04-11-2007, 8:34 PM
Sort of like the DA in the Duke rape case, Nifong. Makes accusations and files charges when he has no credible evidence. The case is later thrown out and now the true victims, the accused players, are talking about suing him personally and the state for several million dollars. Same thing should happen to the BOF and its lackeys.

Californio
04-12-2007, 9:16 AM
Sort of like the DA in the Duke rape case, Nifong. Makes accusations and files charges when he has no credible evidence. The case is later thrown out and now the true victims, the accused players, are talking about suing him personally and the state for several million dollars. Same thing should happen to the BOF and its lackeys.

Makes me wonder what kind of law is being taught in Law Schools these days.

Abusing a Law Degree should be harshly punished, looks like the BAR is unable to police itself.

hoffmang
04-12-2007, 9:23 AM
The BAR was never really about policing itself - its more about stopping competition, but we're digressing on that issue.

-Gene

cathog
04-20-2007, 8:56 AM
DOJ 2002 Opinion Letter Regarding DS Arms SA58 Configuration Contradicts Recent DOJ Lawyer's Position Taken in Proposed Regulations and Prosecutions

The law firm of Trutanich-Michel, LLP has recently located and published a January 2002 opinion letter and expert report from the California Department of Justice - Bureau of Firearms (DOJ) that approves the magazine configuration on a DS Arms model SA58 rifle and confirms it is not an "assault weapon." The letter flatly contradicts the DOJ's current reinterpretation of what constitutes an illegal "assault weapon," and clarifies the historical position that has been taken by DOJ and relied on by thousands of gun owners since the 1999 "assault weapon" law was passed.

Hopefully, the release of these documents will serve to put an end to DOJ’s recent mistaken reinterpretations of the "assault weapon" law’s requirements, will prompt the DOJ to give clear guidance to firearms dealers, and will put an end to current criminal prosecutions of people who relied on the DOJ's previous interpretations in configuring their firearms to comply with the law.

The documents and the full article can be found here:
http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-481.html

In follow-up to the original posting, a video of the removal of the DS Arms SA 58 magazine has been posted on Calgunlaws.com at the end of the article -- along with supplemental materials. http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-481.html

leelaw
04-20-2007, 10:46 AM
I love Iggy's speculation.

"I could remove the magazine and insert a 20rd magazine" good for you, you created an assault weapon. You're so speshul, Iggy.

dfletcher
05-06-2007, 7:08 PM
I just visited the FAL Files forum & the DSA vs CA DOJ issue was mentioned. Does anyone have any further information?

I don't exactly get the "we're going to fight to win" attitude from the fellow on the FAL forum who identifies himself as a DSA rep having recently spoken with DSA management. I hope ribbon welded in place mags are not the result.

ravenbkp
05-06-2007, 9:38 PM
I do not know the back story but they are back to shipping product per their phone staff about ten days ago. I would love to know the whole story.

hoffmang
05-07-2007, 5:48 AM
CA DOJ (now) BOF forgot that they had approved the rifle. They've been reminded by the right people by way of a copy of their own letter...

DSA is back to shipping normal Cali-FALs from what I've heard.

-Gene

Wulf
05-07-2007, 7:54 AM
dawson8r,

CA DOJ has real exposure to violations of Federal Law and certain interstate commerce claims on these sorts of things.

-Gene

Isnt pursuit of that kind of thing the responsibility of the federal govt?

Is that the kind of thing where if DSA or Bushmaster or whomever went to their local Congressman and said "hey, Ca. is violating our interstate commerce rights, can you have the Atty General look into this", then the Congressman writes a letter to Gonzales and that's the direction the suit comes from? I would be nice to use the interstate commerce clause for something appropriate for a change.

hoffmang
05-07-2007, 10:15 AM
There are some interesting Commerce and Due Process issues for the CA DOJ BOF, yes. Getting someone to press them is the harder part.

-Gene

xenophobe
05-07-2007, 2:07 PM
Yup... standing and backing... as well as the desire to fight.

dfletcher
05-07-2007, 2:50 PM
Isnt pursuit of that kind of thing the responsibility of the federal govt?

Is that the kind of thing where if DSA or Bushmaster or whomever went to their local Congressman and said "hey, Ca. is violating our interstate commerce rights, can you have the Atty General look into this", then the Congressman writes a letter to Gonzales and that's the direction the suit comes from? I would be nice to use the interstate commerce clause for something appropriate for a change.


I don't imagine that either Feinstein or Boxer are going to be writing any letters on our behalf. On the Illinois side, DSA won't be able to look for help from Obama either.

Wulf
05-07-2007, 3:03 PM
I don't imagine that either Feinstein or Boxer are going to be writing any letters on our behalf. On the Illinois side, DSA won't be able to look for help from Obama either.

Feinstein and Boxer are irrelevant. Its would have to be a legislator from a state with one of the manufacturers that's having its commerce unfairly crimped by BOF. I cant imagine that there's not one of the dozen Brands on the kassler list that doesnt have a progun senator or representative that it can get to write a letter for them.

EdinKali
05-09-2007, 6:15 PM
Here is the latest official word from DSA on the SA58

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=202214

hoffmang
05-09-2007, 6:25 PM
Ed,

I'm not registered there - can you post a quick summary from the link?

-Gene

blacklisted
05-09-2007, 6:30 PM
Here it is:

Hello FAL Fans,

I want to shed some light on a recent issue which has caused confusion and stirred rumors about the legal status of our SA-58 California rifle.

As far as DSA is concerned the rifle is legal for sale in California, and we
have been shipping to dealers. This issue seems to be isolated to Turners Outdoors. I reviewed a letter today from our attorney (which was sent to DOJ asking for an explanation of their recent actions), and we are waiting for a response from Cali DOJ. Cali DOJ has NOT notified DSA to stop shipping to dealers, nor have we received any communication from DOJ, even though we have had attorneys pressing them for communication and resolution on the Turners issue. DOJ has not informed our attorney that we must stop shipping rifles to California. As far as we are concerned, this was an isolated incident with Turners, and none of our other dealers in California have been harassed about this issue. I understand how people may be confused about this, but I really feel that the internet hype has blown the issue out of proportion, and the more people talk about it, the more it seems like a real problem. Cali DOJ knows who owns these rifles, and to our knowledge not one
person, or dealer other than Turners has been contacted or been made aware of a problem regarding sales of the SA-58 California. DSA would like to continue supporting sportsmen and firearms enthusiasts in California, and we will do so until instructed otherwise.

Best Wishes,

Marc Galli
General Manger
DSA Inc.

C.G.
05-09-2007, 7:23 PM
Ed,

I'm not registered there - can you post a quick summary from the link?

-Gene

Nice thing about FALFILES, you do not have to be registered to read all the posts and be able to do searches.

hoffmang
05-09-2007, 9:06 PM
C.G. - That link certainly wants me to register... I admit to not trying to up navigate and get back down...

-Gene

C.G.
05-09-2007, 11:39 PM
C.G. - That link certainly wants me to register... I admit to not trying to up navigate and get back down...

-Gene

What you really need to do is get a FAL. I sort of like my AR-10 more because it is a little more simple and a little more accurate, but there is something about the FAL.:)

hoffmang
05-10-2007, 10:53 AM
Its on my list when I slow down my spending on legal battles :D

For now I just rely on my M1A for .308.

-Gene

westcoastr
05-11-2007, 10:39 AM
C.G. (and all)

i give to NRA to help support firearm friendly politicians BUT are there any orgs in CA that I can donate to to help us out here locally by helping to fight the CA DOJ lawsuits and other CA-specific issues?

I am seriously considering a DSA FAL, mainly because its in 308 and its gas system keeps the bolt clean. any downside to FALs? also should I move out of CA or the AW law goes away can I reconfigure it easily to a detach mag? (am i of the understanding that the mag is held in place by an allen bolt?) I'd hate to have a very expensive top loading rifle.

or alternatively does someone make a FAL w/ a detach mag but without a pistol grip (that would be legal in CA right?) but I could later cheaply convert back to a pistol grip (say with just a new rear stock?)

C.G.
05-11-2007, 11:11 AM
C.G. (and all)

i give to NRA to help support firearm friendly politicians BUT are there any orgs in CA that I can donate to to help us out here locally by helping to fight the CA DOJ lawsuits and other CA-specific issues?

I am seriously considering a DSA FAL, mainly because its in 308 and its gas system keeps the bolt clean. any downside to FALs? also should I move out of CA or the AW law goes away can I reconfigure it easily to a detach mag? (am i of the understanding that the mag is held in place by an allen bolt?) I'd hate to have a very expensive top loading rifle.

or alternatively does someone make a FAL w/ a detach mag but without a pistol grip (that would be legal in CA right?) but I could later cheaply convert back to a pistol grip (say with just a new rear stock?)

In my opinion, NRA is the one to help financially. You can also help these two guys privately. If they win, it is a win for us.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=57739

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=57189

As far as the FAL. My AR-10 is a little more accurate, but there is something about the FAL I like, no real drawbacks if you buy a decent one (stay away from Century) and yes, if you are out of state you can put in a regular mag catch. You can also buy a thumhole stock, fill it in and would be able to use regular mags as long as you had no other evil features.

bwiese
05-11-2007, 11:12 AM
Calif NRA Members Councils are the NRA focal point in CA for CA regulatory matters.

Our fearless leader H. Paul Payne is vigorously involved in CA-specific issues, along with various legislative/lobbying efforts (Ed Worley). These are Californians with a California focus.

Talk to your local members council for contact info.

The FAL issues have had specific support from NRA lawyers ;)